Why do you even read philosophy? It's not like you'll really change your opinion, and even if you do, it'll be on something so mundane that it will barely change how you live. I will not become a moral person from reading Kant, nor will I receive enlightenment from Plato.
I have only enjoyed reading philosophers that I already agreed with. And Zhuangzi destroyed philosophy over 2000 years go, so why are we still doing this shit?
>I will not become a moral person from reading Kant
Wow so profound too bad no philosophers ever realized that checkmate feelfags
Alright Spongebob
That's your problem, dude.
maybe it's not so much about changing but more about understanding.
>Zhuangzi
explain
>It's not like you'll really change your opinion
u'd be supirise
A lot of his philosophy is on the foolishness of sages and how true wisdom is unattainable
I sincerely hope you are 13 years old or something, and that there are not adults this stupid walking the earth.
what is
true wisdom
Unimportant.
how is that unimportant? if you don't know then just say so, there's no shame in not knowing stuff.
if you're concluding it is unattainable you surely know what it is you are calling unattainable
I don't see how that follows
AAAA
Because I want to know what they said and make my own opinions afterwards.
Wow if only Pythagoras had thought of that when he invented the word "philosophy" as an admission that man can not know truth, but may love and pursue it regardless.
if you dont know what you're calling unattainable how do you know it's unattainable
>invented the word "philosophy" as an admission that man can not know truth, but may love and pursue it regardless
Technically, that would be philalethia, not philosophy.
Truth, wisdom, you get my point you pedant.
So I can come to threads like this and wonder why you're so dumb
Fine, I'll bite.
Philosophy and literature have the property of producing effects in the reader regardless of initial prejudices. You don't have to be a Christian or to have any sympathy for Christianity in order to be impressed by Dante or to have an aesthetic experience while reading him (or both since they usually go together). The point is that the best philosophy and literature create openings so that even if you already fully agree with the author, you nonetheless get displacements in your worldview that might allow for openings towards other views. This happens, fortunately, even when you disagree with the author. It is far too easy to dismiss an author after you were in fact changed by him, especially if you aren't aware of the changes produced.
That having been said, you're holding authors to an incorrect standard. Although one can become moral after reading Kant, he is not the best author for producing a desire to be moral, but rather a guide for thinking once you already are desiring morality.
So tl;dr I'm guessing you haven't read that much philosophy of you have not been changed by it. I recommend Twilight of the Idols for the passages that deal with the relationship between knowledge (including everyday thoughts and explanations) and power/control. If those don't make your stance a bit less rigid then maybe you're destined for plebhood.
I read "The Ego And His Own" by Max Stirner expecting to get memed on but it actually made sense to me and I agreed with him on a lot of points. I accidentally fell for the meme now I can see your post, OP, is a spook, an ethereal specter which seeks to possess me and any reader willing to succumb to your ghostly post.
>Why do you even read philosophy?
Quoting philosophers impresses people who just don't know any better.